Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Heterosexual

215 (62.7%)

Bisexual/pansexual

66 (19.2%)

Homosexual

16 (4.7%)

Asexual

37 (10.8%)

I'm 12 and what is this?

9 (2.6%)

Total Members Voted: 338

[LordBucket]

Maybe the goal is having the words be so common that you don't need to look them up.
You just know them.

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I was expressing desire for.

Same is true for describing different sexual orientations. If we didnt call a homosexual a "gay", we would instead say something coarse and crass like "That guy we know that bangs other guys."

Or...we as a society could come to simply not care enough that it didn't come up in conversation very often. For example, we don't need a specific word to mean "people who brush their teeth with their left hand" vs. "people who brush their teeth with their right hand." Because it's not important enough for anyone to care, and if it does somehow come up, describing the phenemonon rather than having a unique word for it is suitable. Like, as you say, "guy who bangs other guys."

When it comes to sexuality, I sometimes feel like we have words to describe people who brush their teeth exclusively with their left hand, both eyes closed and while humming the national anthem, but are flexible about whether they look at the big mirror in the bathroom or the mirror on the medicine cabinet while doing so.

Specific example: wouldn't everyone be happier if the surgery were good enough and people cared about it sufficiently little that terms like trans, transgendered, transvestite, FTM, MTF,  were unnecessary in the general lexicon because if you, for example, changed from male to female the correct word to describe you was simply "female?"

Wouldn't that be better for everyone? I realize we can't do that now. If a guy discovers that his "girlfriend" was originally a guy, that's a recipe for angst and anger and feelings of deceit and betrayal. Because we care about that kind of thing.

I was expressing desire for us, as a society, to not care so much about gender identity and sexuality. I think we'd all be happier if it wasn't so important to us.

[Vattic]

I find it hard to imagine we could reach a point when sexuality didn't matter to the human race.

[kaijyuu]

I'm not really sure why we'd want to.

Celebrating our differences isn't mutually exclusive with bonding. For healthy friendships, relationships, etc, I'd say it's essential to do both.


I don't really care about another person's hair color, but if for some reason they're proud of it, more power to them.

[Max White]

I'm pretty sure the only way sexuality would be irrelevant is if everybody was ok with everything. As long as you can hit on somebody and they will reply with "Sorry, I only date people with these qualifiers" there will always be cause to shorten that with a noun, such is the nature of language.

[Tack]

Yeah. There's already words for 'left hander' and 'right hander'. Which I guess goes for toothbrushing as well.

You can't just want people to not acknowledge a person's sexuality. It's always going to be there, and it's something which another person will want to know about.
And whilst I personally believe that pansexuality means that you either want attention or have had a very full life, at the very least there should always be something for 'I like men', 'I like Women', 'I like men and women'. Which is 'Homo, Hetero and Bi'. Now just to make those sound less derogatory.

[wierd]

What about people that dont want sex at all, Hmm?

In this hypothetical "All sex is ok" world, there will still be people like me, who just don't want any.

[Tack]

No. You'll be oppressed and corralled, and led with collars and zap-sticks to the re-education center.


But meanwhile in real people land, do you believe that you're incapable of romantic attachment? Because as our recent studies have shown, your preferences for sentimentality are pretty well linked to what you like sexually anyway.
So whilst Asexual is fine, it's more likely that you're just a Ho-He-Bi with no libido. Which is two different scales.

[freeformschooler]

What about people that dont want sex at all, Hmm?

In this hypothetical "All sex is ok" world, there will still be people like me, who just don't want any.

That's not what asexual colloquially refers to?

[wierd]

The previous sentiments presented, suggested it was desirable for there to be no need for designations concerning sexual preference.

I was pointing out that even if pansexuality was the norm, there would still be people like me who have a preference for fully intellectual relationships, completely free of any and all forms of sexual interaction.

Yes, the term Asexual is what usually applies today. The point was that the GGP wanted a world where such descriptors dont exist because they don't have meaning, and I was asserting that my preference is incompatible with all forms of sex.

[Xantalos]

Just say none.

[Max White]

In the hypothetical of "Everybody is pansexual", one of the pretty easy assumptions we can make is that everybody is pansexual. Saying " even if pansexuality was the norm, there would still be people like me who have a preference for fully intellectual relationships, completely free of any and all forms of sexual interaction" is akin to saying "even if everybody was a woman, there would still be people like me who are men"

No! That is not how a hypothetical works!

[Tack]

I still say we're going off two different frames of reference here.

Wanting a purely intellectual relationship doesn't make you attracted to a specific gender.
It just means you have no libido.

[wierd]

Max-- I dont think that is what LordBucket meant.

More, "We refer to camels as "camels", because we dont really care what color or size they are, or how long their hair is."

A corollary would be "We call dogs, "dogs".  with the implication that there is no need to specify what kind of dog, because nobody cares.

Under this kind of pretext, "people are people, and its all good" comes up as the norm. (much like the previously joked "Jack Harness-sexuality" type cosmopolitanism.

This would leave only 2 kinds.  Sexual people, and asexual people. The sexual people wouldn't care, because if somebody wasn't into them, thats just fine-- they'd still ask anyway, because why not? No harm in asking, right?

The issue, is that people like me, would always prefer they not ask, and in a world where "It's all good!", and "There's no reason not to ask", we would get asked *A LOT*.

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I exude "Essence of assholiness" in my persona so often. (it really isn't a true part of my persona.) It's a coping strategy. (Because many people have asserted, and I myself have noticed, that I am actually quite 'cute', and I really REALLY do not want that attention. I find being hit on "Disturbing". Like hentai tentacles on the face kind of disturbing.) I am not looking to attract anyone, and instead, use subtle measures to actively repel instead.

I *MUST* find the person intellectually attractive before I can even contemplate the mere possibility of the act of being sexual with them. Literally, I see people, and harbor no sexual impulse whatsoever, and when such advances are directed my way, it is every bit as alien as hentai tentacles coming out. Its damned unsettling and creepy as hell. I didnt learn to be this way. I have always been this way. Highschool was a survival horror experience for me, where everyone I knew lost their damned minds.

I get what you are trying to say-- What I am getting at is that this utopian ideal cannot exist. People like me would have to cease to exist totally for that to happen.


Tack-- No, I am actively repulsed by forward sexual inquiry. That's different from lack of libido.

[Tack]

Libido /lɨˈbiːdoʊ/, and colloquially sex drive, is a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity. Sex drive is determined by biological, psychological, and social factors...
Asexual people may lack any sexual desires...
There is no measure of what is a healthy level for sex desire. Some people want to have sex every day, or more than once a day; others once a year or not at all. However, a person who lacks a desire for sexual activity for some period of time may be experiencing a hypoactive sexual desire disorder or may be asexual

So by my personal assertion, it is exactly a lack of libido. That is not a negative thing, so please don't assume I'm putting those connotations on it.

So the way I'm seeing it is Ho-He-Bi-Pan is side-to-side, Man-Woman-Trans* is a different side to side scale, and Asexual and Nymphomania are the extremes of an up and down scale of sexual desire.
So therefore I put it to you that if you are romantically attracted to intelligence, regardless of gender, you may actually be pansexual. But it is a lot more likely that you are just an asexual heterosexual.

Also I'm kind of confused at the use of hentai tentacles as a point of reference for how disturbing something is. I tend not to find them disturbing, and would in fact be more likely to find the tag "I like to eat small children" more disturbing, except this B12 and we're varying levels of Jaded.
I can only assume that you found 'sexual inquiry' disturbing to a point, and therefore attempted to equate it to something which 'normal' people would find disturbing, like a face full of tentacle. And as I would judge myself relatively high on the universal scale of sexuality, it's like we're both throwing darts inwards to try and find a mutual point of interest.
Not complaining- It's just interesting and kind of funny.

[scrdest]

I DO like to eat small children. Just not human children. Lamb, for example.